Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?

Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A.

doi:10.1177/0956797613481812

Cited by 238 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This descriptive step has been absent from the literature on understanding and improving forensic decision making. Recent research on bias in forensic evaluations has taken the approach of documenting bias on outcome measures (e.g., Murrie et al, 2013), but no studies to date have asked forensic evaluators to reflect on their own perceptions and experiences of bias and their ideas about mitigating the biases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Neal¹,

Brodsky²

2016

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but one of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help, focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination.Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Neal¹,

Brodsky²

2016

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Being emotionally close to someone who is selfish or dishonest has been found to lead people to becoming more selfish and dishonest themselves (32). Allegiance bias causes forensic scientists to call their findings for the team they believe has hired them (33). [Indeed, the reliability of all types of forensic science evidence, including ostensibly objective techniques such as DNA typing and fingerprint analysis, has been called to question (34).]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism

Oakley

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The profound benefits of altruism in modern society are self-evident. However, the potential hurtful aspects of altruism have gone largely unrecognized in scientific inquiry. This is despite the fact that virtually all forms of altruism are associated with tradeoffs-some of enormous importance and sensitivity-and notwithstanding that examples of pathologies of altruism abound. Presented here are the mechanistic bases and potential ramifications of pathological altruism, that is, altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm. A basic conceptual approach toward the quantification of altruism bias is presented. Guardian systems and their over arching importance in the evolution of cooperation are also discussed. Concepts of pathological altruism, altruism bias, and guardian systems may help open many new, potentially useful lines of inquiry and provide a framework to begin moving toward a more mature, scientifically informed understanding of altruism and cooperative behavior.Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.-Richard Feynman

show abstract

“…13 Experts are susceptible to this bias in any forensic setting that pits one side against another or creates a potential conflict between different experts. It is particularly common in the adversarial legal setting, where experts on each side may receive financial incentives for a favorable opinion.…”

Section: Confirmation Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a comprehensive study of violence risk assessment, experts were ostensibly retained by one side vs the other and given instructions suggesting they might emphasize information favoring that side to some extent. 13 There was also the implicit promise of possible gain from lucrative future work. In such cases, even on objective measures of future risk, experts differed dramatically during their assessment of potential dangerousness.…”

Section: Confirmation Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing and reducing cognitive bias in clinical and forensic neurology

Satya‐Murti¹,

Lockhart²

2015

Neur Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In medicine, cognitive errors form the basis of bias in clinical practice. Several types of bias are common and pervasive, and may lead to inaccurate diagnosis or treatment. Forensic and clinical neurology, even when aided by current technologies, are still dependent on cognitive interpretations, and therefore prone to bias. This article discusses 4 common biases that can lead the clinician astray. They are confirmation bias (selective gathering of and neglect of contradictory evidence); base rate bias (ignoring or misusing prevailing base rate data); hindsight bias (oversimplification of past causation); and good old days bias (the tendency for patients to misremember and exaggerate their preinjury functioning). We briefly describe strategies adopted from the field of psychology that could minimize bias. While debiasing is not easy, reducing such errors requires awareness and acknowledgment of our susceptibility to these cognitive distortions. Neurol Clin Pract 2015;5:389-396

show abstract

Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?

Cited by 238 publications

References 19 publications

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism

Recognizing and reducing cognitive bias in clinical and forensic neurology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About